Chang - Foul or Not?
- Thread starter Cornerman
- Start date
I wonder too, who refs the refs?
Reminds me of most city employees: you have a worker in the ditch, a watcher sitting outside the ditch and you have a watcher-watcher in the truck drinking coffee.
what if you breathe on the cue ball accidentally is that a loss of game and a flogging?
Air quality dependent.
Is there a 'Coefficient of Referee Reprimand'??? Starting to dig this 'coefficient' deal.
i guess if a tshirt that touches a ball is a foul then lets get our coefficient goggles out with a faro arm distribulatorIs there a 'Coefficient of Referee Reprimand'??? Starting to dig this 'coefficient' deal.
Fficien is always better in pairs.
he clearly pushed it with a forward stroke. and that is a foul according to all the rules.
and playing in a tournament you are playing a game of rules. and nothing is nitty in calling any rule violation in a tournament.
in a cash game you dont get paid, get in a fight, or lose a customer.
and playing in a tournament you are playing a game of rules. and nothing is nitty in calling any rule violation in a tournament.
in a cash game you dont get paid, get in a fight, or lose a customer.
chang's definitely no stranger to gambling, on and off the pool table. might be old habits that showed up here. unfortunate, but also ignorant and lazy. and filler shouldn't have rolled out afterwards as some suggested, that's a crazy suggestion.
I think in the end, the rule needs a rewrite. For all that say that the written rules are clear that what Chang did is a foul (touched with tip in a forward motion), then you must acknowledge that the rules are then explicit that if you use only the ferrule or shaft, but move the cueball in a forward stroking motion … then that has to also be a foul.
The rule literally says “any part of the stick” and “but not with a forward stroke motion.” This wording is by the grammar not exclusive to the tip. Rather, it’s explicitly to all and any part of the stick. Surely the same “letter of the law” posters aren’t going to say that moving the cueball forward with the ferrule and only ferrule is a foul when moving the cueball straight forward in a down and addressed stance.
“Players may use any part of the cuestick to move the cue ball, including the tip, but not with a forward stroke motion.”
Rewriting is mandatory. Grammar and punctuation dictate it.
The rule literally says “any part of the stick” and “but not with a forward stroke motion.” This wording is by the grammar not exclusive to the tip. Rather, it’s explicitly to all and any part of the stick. Surely the same “letter of the law” posters aren’t going to say that moving the cueball forward with the ferrule and only ferrule is a foul when moving the cueball straight forward in a down and addressed stance.
“Players may use any part of the cuestick to move the cue ball, including the tip, but not with a forward stroke motion.”
Rewriting is mandatory. Grammar and punctuation dictate it.
Good post Freddy. FYI, I shared a quote of your post with the WPA Rules Committee, who is also discussing this topic. At some point, the committee will seek public input for other suggested rules changes and for comments on proposed changes. In the meantime, the committee is monitoring all rules-related discussions here and elsewhere.
Best post in the thread. It is just as important that the rule be crystal clear to players as referees if the strictest possible enforcement is to be reasonable.
Ancient history but I have played under rules where you couldn't touch the cue ball with the stick. Far too long ago to remember where the rule came from, might have been just a local rule. As you say so well, the rules do need to be clarified. Even the officials seem to have drifted into accepting what is common practice which isn't the way to officiate. Not right to expect people to follow unwritten rules.
Hu
I find no fault with this, but when it comes to rules that come up once in a blue moon (when was the last time anyone has seen this call made?), I guess the referee has little choice. Rules and their application evolve over time, however, and rule books need to keep pace with such evolution.
Yes, but it's different on a Diamond than on a Rasson.
Yes, they could have rule books that looked like a set of encyclopedia and not cover every circumstance. Sometimes all the official has is accepted practice and/or common sense to go by.
As an official I have shut down a match when glass was shattered all over a table. We had to wait until another table was available and move. Far from ideal but no vacuum available and I considered the safety issue to be of primary importance. I didn't like what I did, I liked other choices less. What I did was better than risking glass embedded in a player's hand or them bleeding everywhere.
Another time, I had a minor cut from earlier in the day open up on my bridge hand. I didn't notice until railbirds asked where all the blood on the table was coming from. We started hunting the culprit and it was me. Oops!
Hu
Another interesting shot I've seen only a couple of times in my life is when someone kicks at a ball and hits it so thin that the ball barely quivers. You must be in the right place to see this. Otherwise you would never know the object ball was contacted. I called this good hit a couple of times and the opponent fiercely objected. Of course I was standing very close to the object ball and he was sitting down at the far end of the table.
The Tournament Director is the final authority.